TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
13.05.2008
The Obama Rectangle



Via Andrew Sullivan, Meng Bomin at Daily Kos has some cool maps with county-by-county Democratic primary and caucus results. One thing that this map makes clear is that pretty much the single most important factor in this race has been Hillary Clinton's astonishing weakness in the northwestern quadrant of the country. If you draw a line from Monterey, California, eastward to (approximately) Evansville, Indiana, and then north to Canada, you have an enormous chunk of the country in which there's very little red. So little, in fact, that Obama's delegate margins in these states have put the race essentially out of reach: Obama's net gain of 24 delegates from Minnesota exceeds Clinton's net gain from New Jersey (11) and Pennsylvania (12), even though those two states have about three and a half times the total number of delegates as Minnesota does.

There's been a ton of commentary on why Clinton has dominated the Rust Belt and why Obama has been able to run up such staggering margins among African-Americans. But there's been far less written on the more interesting and significant question of why Clinton proved so anathema to Upper Midwest, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific Northwest Democrats. Was it the caucus format? Regional political culture? Lingering resentment from Bill Clinton's presidency? Some combination thereof? Whatever the main cause, it made the difference.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:49 PM with 19 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

lymon1 said:

"There's been a ton of commentary on...why Obama has been able to run up such staggering margins among African-Americans."

Go figure!  (Yes, I know early polls had Hillary Clinton winning the majority of the African-American vote but I'm surprised how many people disagreed with Michelle Obama early in the race that those numbers would not hold).  

May 13, 2008 1:00 PM

miceelf said:

Of course, the other thing is that it's pretty easy to extrapolate how the remaining gray areas will color in.

May 13, 2008 1:27 PM

roidubouloi said:

I think this "cool map" actually obscures the point.  If you look at the map in the NY Times, Obama has a solid block of territory in the NW and the SE and in NEng (Would Hillary have won NY if she were at the moment a senator from Arkansas?). Hillary has the Rust Belt/Appalachia and the SW plus FL, sort of the Sunbelt.

What does this mean?  Is it all explained by AA vote and age?  Is it about risk averseness?  Education?  The contiguous areas are so striking that it is incumbent upon someone to figure out what is driving this.

May 13, 2008 1:32 PM

liberal reformer said:

Lymonl: As the saying goes, history is lived forward but written backward. It is nice that you and Michelle "knew" what was going to happen beforehand but for some of us mere mortals, events seem to unfold and mutate, often times in response to other events. Iowa emboldened African - Americans; it told them that just maybe Barack Obama could be nominated after all. Contingency is all. If Obama would have tanked in Iowa, the race would have likely (and I do mean "likely"; I'm not a prophet like you) gone far differently.

As for the regional puzzle, Obama was so much better organized in the caucus states. I believe that Hillary was expecting to be coronated and she probably believed she could spot any number of caucus states to her opponents and then clean up in the delegate - rich populous states. That explains any number of states in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain areas.

May 13, 2008 1:45 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Josh, it could have been that these voters simply liked Obama.  Lots of people, I'd venture to say most people, vote for someone in this election rather than against someone.

May 13, 2008 1:56 PM

bigfish said:

Does anyone else see evidence of some "native son/daughter" dynamics?

Hillary does better on the NY side of the NY/VT divide, and on the AR side of the AR/LA, MS divide.

Barack does better in Southern IL with respect to IN and MO, and in KS relative to OK and MO.

I don't think demographics change THAT much when you cross state lines.

May 13, 2008 2:01 PM

Rhubarbs said:

If you want a real kick, compare the Obama/Clinton map with the Kerry/Bush map from 2004:

www.georgehernandez.com/.../11-09_Election-CountyPurpleMap.png

I think this paints a promising picture of Obama's chances to build on the shifts of 2006 and cement Democratic inroads in the Mountain West and Border South. I also think it paints a damning picture of Hillary's inability to win votes in the few high-population counties where large turnout and large margins win states for Dems. But whatever conclusions one draws, the maps show interesting trends in the distribution of voter support.

May 13, 2008 2:04 PM

lymon1 said:

libref -- well, I think a lot of people hedged their bets, but I don't recall anyone predicting that once we got into the primary race African-Americans weren't going to flock to Obama.  The Clintons definitely cemented things post-SC and might have otherwise eeked out another 10-20%, but I think any idea that Obama wrestled the AA vote away from Hillary on the merits is revisionism.

I totally agree on caucus organization, and would add that Clintons horrible waste of her early campaign budget prevented her from making up for lack of infrastructure later on.  

May 13, 2008 2:17 PM

cspencef said:

Why does this have to be complicated?  Obama's campaign had forces on the ground and humming in these areas before Clinton (or any of the other Democratic candidates, for that matter) had even acknowledged that those states existed, campaign-wise.  Couple that with the Iowa breakthrough and the putt sinks itself from there.

May 13, 2008 2:22 PM

naomi88 said:

Never mind that Obama was better organized in the caucus states.  Obama is just stronger in the northwest quadrant, period, and really the southwest quadrant as well, as far as the general election is ocncerned.  Check out Poblano's awesome website, where on the left side of the opening page he has the polling comparisons for Obama and Clinton against McCain.  

www.fivethirtyeight.com/.../west-virginia-preview-clinton-by-39.html

In the North Central, Prairie, Southwest, Big Sky and Pacific states, Obama beats Clinton in every state other than Wyoming (where they tie).  

May 13, 2008 2:31 PM

jmkerr said:

Most of the northwestern states were caucus states. Clinton lost Washington by just 4 points in the primary.

Wisconsin remains the anomaly, and it still seems relevant that 1 in 3 voters was a white independent/republican. I still think a good chunk of them were voting against Clinton rather than for Obama.

He still does seem more popular; I just dispute the degree of his popularity. But if he wins SD and Montana by 40 points, go ahead and say I told you so.

May 13, 2008 3:05 PM

leertracy said:

I am surprised that so many are forgetting how unsure everyone was about the black vote and Hillary vs Obama. Not only did you have a huge amount of goodwill towards Clinton in the black community, but you also had very-well reported dillemma amongst black women whether to go with the first Female nominee or the first Black nominee. Obama's numbers weren't that big amongst blacks. Many blacks explained they weren't going to vote for someone just cuz they were black - they needed to see a real candidate with a good campaign and real shot. After Iowa, they had that candidate.

But I think Clinton would still have done better had Bill said something else. Had Bill simply commended Obama on his success in SC and kept his mouth shut, things could have gone far differently among blacks. While most blacks are, I think, voting FOR Obama, we know that some are voting AGAINST Hillary and Bill.

May 13, 2008 3:06 PM

virginiacentrist said:

THAT'S EASY!

Race is barely an issue in those states. Plus, most of those were caucuses.

May 13, 2008 3:21 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

The contrast on that image burns my eyeballs. Ffs, change the colors....

May 13, 2008 3:49 PM

psantillana said:

I live in Seattle and grew up in St. Louis. It feels as though I stepped into the future. And when I go back there I go back to the past. This past/future thing I've noticed in other places, too. Minneapolis - future. Cincinnatti - past. This is something I noticed well before Obama's candidacy. And, true to hype, they like Obama in the future places.

May 13, 2008 3:55 PM

liberal reformer said:

Psantillana: I live in Seattle, too but I must say that there is more than a little nonsense in this "future" place. City council members pronouncing on foreign policy and talking about breaching dams in Eastern Washington, school board members bleating their opposition to free trade, pie - in - the sky transportation "solutions" and major political gridlock, resulting from a "future" speciality called "process".

May 13, 2008 4:28 PM

teplukhin2you said:

More from the Rohrschach brigades: hey, sure, the unavoidable conclusion from this map is that OurCandidate rules, OtherCandidate sucks.

One of the advantages of nearsightedness combined with a sharp eye for color is that, when I take off my computer glasses, the colors leap forth, and I can determine a dozen hues and tints which to the 20/20 observer seem like two or three. Applying this test to the above map, it's obvious that the "red" candidate and the "blue" candidate are so evenly matched that only a hack would claim that one or the other dominates.

Blue dominates in

--IL, HI and AK

--WA, ID, CO's front range, KS

--the MS delta and the cotton belt through SC

--tidewater VA and MD

--VT and down east ME

Red dominates in

--AR and NY

--the Rio Grande from TX to Santa Fe NM and the Colorado plateau from Phoenix to Vegas

--CA's Inland Empire ag areas

--MO and the OH River Valley, Appalachia

What to take away from this?

1) the party is very sharply split on racial lines.

Red dominates in heavily latino areas. Blue's support is rock-solid among southern rural and small town afr-amers (except in AR), Red's support is rock-solid among southern whites, transplanted southern whites in the OH River Valley.

2) Blue's the Gary Hart /  John Kerry candidate who appeals to the snow bunny and mountain jet set.

His non-afr amer support is dominant in the crunchy hippie / nouveau yuppie and gazillionaire green refuges that have attracted hordes of college-educated liberals fleeing CA and the NY-DC axis: Seattle, Denver, Portland ME, and the 2nd home gazillionaire resorts across the Rockies.

3) The caucus system introduces a huge amount of noise into the system. There's utterly no reason that Blue should dominate in KS and IA.

May 13, 2008 5:15 PM

kyoung said:

What's the matter with Kansas?

May 13, 2008 6:11 PM

dannyc said:

Looks like HRC is only really strong in Arkansas and that string of areas corresponding to the Appalachian Mountains.  Hill and Bill; is that why they are called Hillbillys?

-

May 13, 2008 8:24 PM